Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Noel Pinth vs Shiv Kumar Gupta on 24 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-14791-2017
(SHRI NOEL PINTH Vs SHIV KUMAR GUPTA)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-04-2018
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Devendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the sh Cr.P.C. to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and e to quash the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by learned ACJM, ad Jabalpur whereby cognizance has been taken against the Pr petitioner for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the case are a hy that, an agreement was entered into between the parties on 28.11.2014 wherein it was agreed to sell plot (No.-4) bearing ad patwari halka number 6, N.B. 605, khasra number 2/1 M admeasuring 30x60 (1800 square feet) in the event of it being allotted to the respondent. The petitioner allegedly received a of sum of Rs.2 Lacs by cheque on 28.11.2014 and an amount of Rs.5 rt Lacs by cheque on 15.12.2014 on the ground that marriage of the ou daughter of the petitioner was to be solemnised. Therefore, the petitioners were in need of money. The petitioners showed C documents to the complainant indicating that Rs.6,500/- has been h deposited by them for allotment of plot from MCI. Respondents ig believing this document acted upon and entered into the H agreement. But these documents are false and fabricated. Therefore, the complainants/ respondents felt cheated by the petitioners. The respondents filed criminal complaint on 08.12.2016 before JMFC which was later travelled to the Court of ACJM. Learned ACJM vide order dated 16.03.2017 has taken cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioners.
3. On behalf of the petitioners, it is claimed that in the absence of ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC, the complaint has been registered by the ACJM is not sustainable. It is also claimed that, it is a pure civil transaction and the respondent complainant has made it criminal case which is not justified. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied in the case of V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2009) 3 SCC 78 wherein it has been held that in the absence of culpable intention at the time of making initial promise, offence under Section 420 is not proved. Mere breach of contract does not necessarily involve cheating.
4. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the respondents sh entered into agreement with the petitioners but the petitioners on e a false pretext entered into agreement and obtained different ad amounts from the complainants. Therefore, the intent is criminal.
Pr Hence it is not that there was a bona fide agreement and the same was not complied with.
a
5. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and hy Others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 it has been held by the Apex Court ad that âpower under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to be used M sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
of Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends rt upon the nature of facts alleged. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But High Court ou must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is C given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil h remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in ig this case, High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal H proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court.â
6. In view of the above and in the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2018.05.01 19:10:54 -07'00' ks H ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh